The “L” Word

• DOI: 10.1177/1065912916648011
• Author: Jacob R. Neiheisel
• Published date: 01 September 2016
• Date: 01 September 2016
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly

2016, Vol. 69(3) 418 –429

© 2016 University of Utah

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912916648011

prq.sagepub.com

Article

Introduction

The polarization of partisan elites has engendered a con-

siderable amount of hand-wringing among political

observers of all stripes. However, a growing number of

political scientists have begun to highlight the positive

aspects of elite polarization. Increased ideological divi-

sions among partisan elites have led to a corresponding

shift in the mass electorate, with Democratic identifiers

becoming more liberal over time and their Republican

counterparts becoming more conservative (Hetherington

2001). As the electorate has sorted along ideological

lines, attitudinal consistency has increased. Consequently,

voters are now thought to be able to participate more

effectively in the political process (Levendusky 2009).

Ideological sorting among the mass public has been

asymmetric, however. While Republicans have taken to

the conservative label with some alacrity, Democrats have

been slower to embrace the liberal moniker. Moreover, the

percentage of Democratic identifiers who profess to be

conservatives has shown little sign of abating over the last

four decades. Thus, while most Republicans are now

sorted—a status that has been associated with greater

degrees of voter competence—Democratic identifiers in

the electorate have lagged behind. As a result, Democrats

are perhaps less able to make sense of the political world,

even one in which divisions between the two parties are

quite pronounced (cf. Hussey 2012). What is more, while

many Americans hold policy positions that are commonly

associated with modern understandings of liberalism (and

are, therefore, operationally liberal), in symbolic terms, the

electorate is more conservative in nature (Claassen, Tucker,

and Smith 2015; Ellis and Stimson 2009, 2011, 2012).

The uneven nature of partisan sorting and the observed

divide between operational and symbolic ideology have

both been linked to Republican efforts at making “liberal”

648011PRQXXX10.1177/1065912916648011Political Research QuarterlyNeiheisel

research-article2016

1University at Buffalo, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jacob R. Neiheisel, Department of Political Science, University

at Buffalo, State University of New York, 422 Park Hall (North

Campus), Buffalo, NY 14260, USA.

Email: jacobnei@buffalo.edu

The “L” Word: Anti-liberal Campaign

Rhetoric, Symbolic Ideology, and the

Electoral Fortunes of Democratic

Candidates

Jacob R. Neiheisel1

Abstract

In recent years, the electorate has sorted along ideological lines. Republican identifiers have grown more likely to

self-identify as conservatives. Democrats, however, have been slow to embrace the liberal label. And while many

Americans are operationally liberal and express support for liberal policy positions, in symbolic terms, the American

electorate is much more conservative in nature and appears reluctant to hew to the liberal label. The uneven nature

of partisan sorting and the observed symbolic/operational divide have both been linked to Republican efforts at

making “liberal” a dirty word, but researchers have yet to offer a direct test of the effects of exposure to anti-liberal

rhetoric. In this study, I rectify this shortcoming using the 2004 University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW)/Brigham

Young University (BYU) panel study coupled with data on the content of candidates’ campaign advertising from the

Wisconsin Advertising Project. I find that exposure to anti-liberal campaign messages had a direct effect on evaluations

of Democratic candidates, vote intention, and vote choice, but only in senate races. At the same time, self-identified

ideology was unmoved by elite efforts at disparaging the liberal label—thereby calling into question simple versions of

a common explanation for the existence of conservative Democrats and “conflicted” conservatives.

Keywords

campaign advertising, electoral politics, ideology, symbolic politics